Is this an Elephant?

26000 Elephants

mustang68 wrote: »

who would you report it to? Revenue?

Seriously?

I bet you'd be the life and soul of any party....

pablo128

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Seriously?

I bet you'd be the life and soul of any party....

Do you own a classic? Do you enjoy 56 euro a year to tax it, and enjoy your hobby? Well that will all come crashing down because of 'cute hoors' like this.
And I can tell you that they don't give a hot sh1te about true classic car enthusiasts. It's purely about saving themselves a few quid on their car tax.

JP 1800

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you own a classic? Do you enjoy 56 euro a year to tax it, and enjoy your hobby? Well that will all come crashing down because of 'cute hoors' like this.
And I can tell you that they don't give a hot sh1te about true classic car enthusiasts. It's purely about saving themselves a few quid on their car tax.

My sentiments exactly, I have a few classics that I spend a great deal of time and money on, the reduced tax makes that hobby a little more financially bearable. I am also nursing a 1989 Mercedes CE 300 closer to the 30 year mark where I am in the hope that the reduced rate kicks in. If these types of tax dodgers get the attention of the senior civil servants we can all kiss the 30 year rule goodbye and in that a car that should be rightly worth a coupe of grand will be worthless. We will loose an era of future classics in this country along with the millions of euros raised in charity car shows.

26000 Elephants

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you own a classic? Do you enjoy 56 euro a year to tax it, and enjoy your hobby? Well that will all come crashing down because of 'cute hoors' like this.
And I can tell you that they don't give a hot sh1te about true classic car enthusiasts. It's purely about saving themselves a few quid on their car tax.

So to enjoy my 56euro concession, I need to go around investigating others to ensure they conform with some vague and indistinct definition of a "true classic car enthusiast"? And then inform on the offenders to Revenue?

So where should I draw the line? Someone driving a 1983 ****box Toyota to work everyday? Is that OK? Should I also report them to their insurance that they are exceeding the terms of the limited policy?

As far as i see it, revenue have rules, and if a car has been given a zv plate then it must have satisfied those rules. However it was done. Enforcement is for the lawmen.
Going down this quasi-vigilante road just makes us all look like petty, mealy-mouthed fools.

Max Headroom

Oh no...i feel like someone is going to mention kit-cars again......:eek:

DOH.!!!..too late..:)

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

So to enjoy my 56euro concession, I need to go around investigating others to ensure they conform with some vague and indistinct definition of a "true classic car enthusiast"? And then inform on the offenders to Revenue?

So where should I draw the line? Someone driving a 1983 ****box Toyota to work everyday? Is that OK? Should I also report them to their insurance that they are exceeding the terms of the limited policy?

As far as i see it, revenue have rules, and if a car has been given a zv plate then it must have satisfied those rules. However it was done. Enforcement is for the lawmen.
Going down this quasi-vigilante road just makes us all look like petty, mealy-mouthed fools.

No-one suggested that there was a need to report those who weren't "true classic car enthusiasts". That's a pretty weak straw man argument. It's law-breaking was the actual issue to hand.

Someone driving a '83 Toyota to work each day is entirely within the law to do so. I doubt anyone has an issue with classic daily drivers, so why pretend otherwise? No-one is in a position to know anyone else's insurance terms, so again - why the straw man argument? The issue to hand, again, is clear/overt law-breaking.

Someone abusing the ZV rules (laws) is not satisfying the law - and that their law-breaking hasn't yet been discovered by the 'lawmen' is no obstacle to anyone else looking to have the law upheld. If you knew of an active arsonist in your community, would you consider yourself a vigilante if you reported that information to the Gardai? So, again - why the 'quasi-vigilante' guff? You seem determined to miss the point.

hi5

26000 Elephants wrote: »

As far as i see it, revenue have rules, and if a car has been given a zv plate then it must have satisfied those rules. However it was done. Enforcement is for the lawmen.
Going down this quasi-vigilante road just makes us all look like petty, mealy-mouthed fools.

The revenue didn't give the plate for 'that' car, they gave it to a different car.
The owner has swapped plates to evade paying €1753 or thereabouts tax per year.
We all have to make up the shortfall in other taxes to compensate, so we have a right to complain.

26000 Elephants

hi5 wrote: »

The revenue didn't give the plate for 'that' car, they gave it to a different car.
The owner has swapped plates to evade paying €1753 or thereabouts tax per year.
We all have to make up the shortfall in other taxes to compensate, so we have a right to complain.

Thats a completely different case. Thats simply 'ringing' and is equally illegal on modern cars as for classics. So why this terror that you will loose your 'special deal' by random criminals falsifying registrations to evade tax?

My point is that there may possibly be a valid reason for that car to bear that index plate, and this witch hunt will more than likely result in the general population questioning why we give concessions to classics in the first place.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats a completely different case. Thats simply 'ringing' and is equally illegal on modern cars as for classics. So why this terror that you will loose your 'special deal' by random criminals falsifying registrations to evade tax?

My point is that there may possibly be a valid reason for that car to bear that index plate, and this witch hunt will more than likely result in the general population questioning why we give concessions to classics in the first place.

We both know that there's no possible valid reason for that Merc to have that plate. No witch hunt is required. But thanks for the bogus attempt at scaremongering.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

No-one suggested that there was a need to report those who weren't "true classic car enthusiasts". That's a pretty weak straw man argument. It's law-breaking was the actual issue to hand.

Someone driving a '83 Toyota to work each day is entirely within the law to do so. I doubt anyone has an issue with classic daily drivers, so why pretend otherwise? No-one is in a position to know anyone else's insurance terms, so again - why the straw man argument? The issue to hand, again, is clear/overt law-breaking.

Someone abusing the ZV rules (laws) is not satisfying the law - and that their law-breaking hasn't yet been discovered by the 'lawmen' is no obstacle to anyone else looking to have the law upheld. If you knew of an active arsonist in your community, would you consider yourself a vigilante if you reported that information to the Gardai? So, again - why the 'quasi-vigilante' guff? You seem determined to miss the point.

Straw man argument? Great. So you have googled Logic Fallacies. Well done. You are indeed an intellectual colossus of he highest caliber and I am truly in awe of you. ( thats satire, btw. Google S-A-T-I-R-E)

Determined To Miss The Point ( ad-hominem attack): Surely the goal of all this is to present different points of view? Are you sure there is only one (yours)?

The arsonist: - Inconsistent argument. Are you suggesting that a rapist/arsonist/murderer is the same as someone you merely believe to be making a dishonest declaration for the purposes of obtaining a tax disc? Thats a pretty big leap.

I think you will find that it is the growing number of people simply using 30 year old cars to evade road tax that will end the concession long before individual cases of possible registration fraud.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

We both know that there's no possible valid reason for that Merc to have that plate. No witch hunt is required. But thanks for the bogus attempt at scaremongering.

Wrong direction.

The scare mongering is your own - The Elephant in the room!! My argument is quite the opposite - 'Calm down folks, no need to get the burning torches and pitchforks out' - sort of thing.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Wrong direction.

The scare mongering is your own - The Elephant in the room!! My argument is quite the opposite - 'Calm down folks, no need to get the burning torches and pitchforks out' - sort of thing.

Ehh, you're (either disingenuously or mistakenly) positing that the car's reg could be legit - which it clearly can't be, and that shining a light on such blatant law-breaking might undermine those of us who aren't breaking any law. Sounds like scare-mongering to me.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Straw man argument? Great. So you have googled Logic Fallacies. Well done. You are indeed an intellectual colossus of he highest caliber and I am truly in awe of you. ( thats satire, btw. Google S-A-T-I-R-E)

Zzzzz. Let me know when you have a point to make.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Determined To Miss The Point ( ad-hominem attack): Surely the goal of all this is to present different points of view? Are you sure there is only one (yours)?

Distorting other people's posts in an attempt to distract from the core issue is not presenting a different point of view. It certainly demonstrates a determination to miss or evade the point.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The arsonist: - Inconsistent argument. Are you suggesting that a rapist/arsonist/murderer is the same as someone you merely believe to be making a dishonest declaration for the purposes of obtaining a tax disc? Thats a pretty big leap.

Again - attempting to miss the point. There's no inconsistency with ensuring the proper authorities enforce the law of the land - whatever laws they might be, and the nonsense of suggesting that doing so is 'quasi-vigilantism'. I note that you couldn't bring yourself to answer the question all the same,

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think you will find that it is the growing number of people simply using 30 year old cars to evade road tax that will end the concession long before individual cases of possible registration fraud.

There's no 'possible registration fraud' at play here. It's clear-cut. And best of luck with your personal theory on the future, but again, you're avoiding the question to hand.

mustang68

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Seriously?

I bet you'd be the life and soul of any party....

No need to get personal, I just asked a question.

hi5

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats a completely different case. Thats simply 'ringing' and is equally illegal on modern cars as for classics. So why this terror that you will loose your 'special deal' by random criminals falsifying registrations to evade tax?

My point is that there may possibly be a valid reason for that car to bear that index plate, and this witch hunt will more than likely result in the general population questioning why we give concessions to classics in the first place.

I'm referring to the OP, what other case?
ZV plates are only issued to vehicles first registered or first manufactured over 30 years ago.
The Merc R129 model was first manufactured in 1989, making it 25 years old at most.
Neither the R107('71 to '89) or the R129 have separate chassis, so it can't be a body swap.
There is no possible valid reason for it to bear that index plate.

Capri

hi5 wrote: »

I'm referring to the OP, what other case?
ZV plates are only issued to vehicles first registered or first manufactured over 30 years ago.
The Merc R129 model was first manufactured in 1989, making it 25 years old at most.
Neither the R107('71 to '89) or the R129 have separate chassis, so it can't be a body swap.
There is no possible valid reason for it to bear that index plate.

129 panels on a 107 shell.???

hi5

Capri wrote: »

129 panels on a 107 shell.???

Or expanding foam and shares in a sandpaper company:D

alastair

Capri wrote: »

129 panels on a 107 shell.???

Which panels could be a candidate? It's not exactly 911 territory, with variations on a theme between models.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

Zzzzz. Let me know when you have a point to make.

No need to comment any further on your posts. You are clearly an individual who is so anally fixated that youve become cross eyed.

anyway, my original point was that reporting such things might be seen by some as a bit, well, w*nkish.
Your above comment indicates that you clearly belong to this category.

26000 Elephants

hi5 wrote: »

I'm referring to the OP,
There is no possible valid reason for it to bear that index plate.

Can the OP just ask? If you know where the car is, can you just ask the owner? If they say, 'oh, yeah, its just a scam. Ive a scrapped R-whatever out the back that had that plate', then i will concede the point.

But that scenario is still just straightforward ringing. Its nothing to do with classics. He just picked an identity that had a lower tax to pay.

26000 Elephants

mustang68 wrote: »

No need to get personal, I just asked a question.

Wasnt meant as a dig at you personally. More at the attitude in general. Sorry! :-)

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No need to comment any further on your posts.

Ah well. Bye bye.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its nothing to do with classics. He just picked an identity that had a lower tax to pay.

So - nothing to do with classics - other than abusing a tax break that benefits actual classic owners, and helps jeopardise that same benefit for those who don't abuse it.

Gotcha.

unkel

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You are clearly an individual who is so anally fixated that youve become cross eyed.

anyway, my original point was that reporting such things might be seen by some as a bit, well, w*nkish.

That's bordering on personal abuse. Less of that please.

swarlb

Is this not a case of the authorities simply not being on top of their game, as in not actually knowing enough about the subject they are dealing with, and thus allowing a 'loophole' to be abused.
But like most things in this country, the simplest method will be to punish everybody, that way you catch the 'lawbreaker'. Anyone else who sufferers....well who really cares ?

unkel

swarlb wrote: »

Is this not a case of the authorities simply not being on top of their game, as in not actually knowing enough about the subject they are dealing with

It would be impossible for a Garda to know all details about all rules / regulations of all vehicles. Once the vehicle is "in the system" in a particular way, the PULSE system will tell a Garda what is what according to the system

As in that R129 is registered with a ZV reg and reg date of '77. So PULSE will tell the Garda that it qualifies for classic tax and that it does not need an NCT

But of course the car should never have been regged as a '77 car. The official who did that should have known better, they weren't doing their job or worse, they did someone "a favour"

mountai

2600 Elephants ---- U a member of The Kit Car Club ???

alastair

unkel wrote: »

But of course the car should never have been regged as a '77 car. The official who did that should have known better, they weren't doing their job or worse, they did someone "a favour"

Or it's a ringer.

swarlb

unkel wrote: »

It would be impossible for a Garda to know all details about all rules / regulations of all vehicles. Once the vehicle is "in the system" in a particular way, the PULSE system will tell a Garda what is what according to the system

As in that R129 is registered with a ZV reg and reg date of '77. So PULSE will tell the Garda that it qualifies for classic tax and that it does not need an NCT

But of course the car should never have been regged as a '77 car. The official who did that should have known better, they weren't doing their job or worse, they did someone "a favour"

I don't accept that really. A Garda is meant to know rules and regulations, that's part of their job. But if they don't, then whoever in the section of Government who deals with vehicle details should know.
I'm no expert on Mercedes cars, in fact I know very little about them, but I know simply by looking at that car, that it was not built in 1973.
If the ZV number plate thing was abolished tomorrow, and that car had a
73 xxxxx plate, it would stick out like an elephants trunk....

Capri

alastair wrote: »

Which panels could be a candidate? It's not exactly 911 territory, with variations on a theme between models.

To the UNTRAINED eye you might get away with doing a nose job as the rear looks 'similar'